Coveralls

Coveralls is a test coverage analytics platform that helps engineering teams measure, track, and improve code coverage across their organization ^{S1 S18}. It solves the problem of not knowing which parts of the codebase are untested, enabling teams to deliver code with more confidence ^S18. The platform provides detailed coverage reports, build history, and integrations with CI services, and is free for open source projects ^S1.

• Identity: Coveralls is a test coverage analytics platform ^S1.
• Core purpose: It helps engineering teams measure, track, and improve code coverage to reduce untested code ^S18.
• Intended users: Development and DevOps teams ^S145.
• Product scope: A web application that provides coverage dashboards, build history, and file-level details ^S1.
• Positioning: Positioned as the leading provider of test coverage analytics ^S1.
• Claimed distinction: Offers a comprehensive view of coverage from aggregate to line-level, with integrations for many CI services ^S1.

Measure, track and drive improvement in code coverage across your engineering organization. Works with any CI service. coveralls.io: an estimated 11,308 total monthly visits and about 130 monthly organic visits across 145 ranking keywords. Scout crawled 15 pages and measured a technical health score of 82/100.

• Total traffic (modeled): 11,308 monthly visits across all channels.
• Organic search traffic (estimated): 130 monthly visits from search.
• Strongest sampled ranking: coveralls io at position 1.
• Leading page in the collected evidence: https://coveralls.io/.
• Closest measured organic competitor: stackshare.io, appearing 3 times in the sampled first-page SERPs.
• Technical crawl: 15 pages, health score 82/100.

Website intelligence — Collected evidence

Company identity and positioning

Total website traffic

Domain identity

Website capture

Top organic keywords

Independent Google result page

Query: coveralls io

Website intelligence — Collected evidence

Prioritized website intelligence pages

Features

Pricing and plans

Integrations and supported platforms

Product and company updates

No supporting public-page evidence was collected for this category.

This analysis created the first position baseline at 2026-10-26T07:46:58.198Z. Movement appears after the next fresh analysis using the same location and language.

Sampled competitors

Website intelligence — Collected evidence

Customers, testimonials, and first-party review claims

Independent review sources discovered

No links to supported independent review platforms were discovered on the collected pages.

AI-assistant referral traffic

• Estimated current generative-AI referral share: 1.6%

Scout traffic model did not return a separate AI-referral trend series for this domain.

Website intelligence — Collected evidence

Site-stated AI capabilities

No supporting public-page evidence was collected for this category.

These are first-party product claims, not independent measurements of AI-search visibility.

Website intelligence — Collected evidence

Website evidence gaps

• customers: no usable public page was collected; verify whether the site publishes this evidence.
• changes: no usable public page was collected; verify whether the site publishes this evidence.
• technical: no usable public page was collected; verify whether the site publishes this evidence.

Independent reviews

Customer proof

No named customers, testimonials, or customer case studies were found.

Independent mentions

• Coveralls - StackShare / StackShare — Stacks 1.71k Discussions 3 ... We use Codecov because it's a lot better than Coveralls. Both of them provide the useful feature of having nice web-accessible reports of which files have what level of test coverage (though every coverage tool produces reasonably nice HTML in a directory on the local filesystem), and can report on PRs cases where significant new code was added without test coverage. ... That said, I'm pretty unhappy with both of them for our use case. The fundamental problem with
• Please use not bot user but GitHub Apps to comment coverage to PR — > Hi, @Warashi. Thanks for the input. We are aware of this and plan to make the switch to Github App-based integration later this year. It's not a simple matter for us due to the number of legacy repos that are in set-and-forget mode, so we will need to support both for some time and provide an easy transition step, until we fully deprecate the current method and migrate everyone. > > In the meantime, the Coveralls Github Action is an available integration that relies solely on Github App-based
• Coveralls Docs — Coveralls is a web-based code coverage service that helps you track the quality of your code over time. With Coveralls, you can monitor your codebase to make sure all new code is fully covered. ... Integrate Coveralls with your codebase 3. Run tests and
• Coveralls - Test Coverage History & Statistics — paid plans let you track coverage for private repos and are tied to a single organization at GitHub, GitLab or Bitbucket. Any user with access to one of those repos at your git host will have access to its coverage reports at Coveralls. All Coveralls
• Coveralls - Test Coverage History & Statistics — page is an overview of all projects, showing current coverage ... Repo Pages show top-to-bottom coverage stats for each of your projects, from total aggregate coverage down to coverage by sub-project, file and every last line of code. See a Live Version
• Common Issues & Troubleshooting / Coveralls Docs — bot access to your repo. To do that, make sure you follow the instructions here. If you’re sure you’ve given the Coveralls bot access to your repo, ... most common reason for a missing PR Comment is that Coveralls couldn’t generate the comment in
• Frequently Asked Questions / Coveralls Docs — at coveralls.io that’s available to all users of Github, Gitlab or Bitbucket. ... is free for public repos and available in several pricing plans based on number of private repos. ... Enterprise is a private, on-premise version of Coveralls that’s
• Coverage threshold for failure as input to gha — ve been trying to simplify the integration process for all coveralls users, across all language communities ... /CI extensions fronting it, so that we can expand ... to meet the greatest number of use cases for the widest audience of coveralls users. >

External links were grounded in one live web search. Search snippets are leads, not independently scraped page content; rejected links remain available in Review evidence.

Not found on the collected pages: uptime and status page. This only means Scout did not find it on the pages it read; it says nothing about the company itself.

Not established in the collected sources.

Not measurable: rdap: no RDAP server published for .io. A gap here means the lookup was unavailable, not that the finding is negative.

Scout — Bounded technical crawl

• Pages crawled: 15 of 15 maximum
• Technical health: 82/100
• Critical issues: 0
• Warnings: 46
• Notices: 17

Issues

Crawled pages

This is a bounded Scout crawl. Core Web Vitals and Lighthouse scores are not claimed unless a dedicated performance audit is connected.

Modeled acquisition channels

First-party connections

No first-party Search Console or Analytics numbers are shown until the site owner authorizes the corresponding Google account. Scout traffic model values above are modeled estimates, not private analytics totals.

The collected pages do not mention specific competitors. Evidence gaps include lack of detailed customer reviews, independent ratings, and specific uptime or performance metrics. Open questions remain about the exact features of the Enterprise On-Prem plan and the full capabilities of the new GitHub integration.

This report is based on 10 collected pages from coveralls.io, including features, pricing, announcements, and terms of service. The evidence catalog includes 15 requests, with 6 rendered pages via browser rendering. External proof search was performed but no verification requests were made. Limitations include partial coverage of the site (10 of 15 pages) and lack of first-party customer reviews or independent ratings.

• Official Websitehttps://coveralls.io/Verified
• Official Websitehttps://coveralls.io/featuresVerified
• Pricing Pagehttps://coveralls.io/pricingVerified
• Documentationhttps://coveralls.io/continuous-integrationVerified
• Documentationhttps://coveralls.io/new-github-integration-betaVerified
• Documentationhttps://coveralls.io/supported-continuous-integrationVerified
• Official Websitehttps://coveralls.io/termsVerified
• Official Websitehttps://coveralls.io/careersVerified
• Official Websitehttps://coveralls.io/announcementsVerified
• Official Websitehttps://coveralls.io/code-coverageVerified
• Review Sitehttps://toolradar.com/tools/coverallsVerified
• Articlehttps://stackshare.io/coverallsVerified
• Review Sitehttps://octopus.com/blog/comparison-code-analysis-toolsVerified
• Articlehttps://github.com/lemurheavy/coveralls-public/issues/1622Verified
• Articlehttps://docs.coveralls.io/Verified
• Articlehttps://docs.coveralls.io/common-issues-and-troubleshootingVerified
• Articlehttps://docs.coveralls.io/faqVerified
• Articlehttps://github.com/coverallsapp/github-action/issues/161Verified